Talk:White Boss Skull Stickman (CG)
This boss should either be called "White boss stickman" or "Grey boss stickman". The only exception to this colour-species naming convention is the Castle Boss. So, which colour does this stickman fall under? --bewnt 01:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC) : What's about "Castle Gate Boss" ? --Justme2 04:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC) :: In that case, then all bosses should be called "Grassland 1 Boss", "Grassland 2 Boss" etc., which isn't right. --bewnt 05:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I would just say "Sub-Castle Boss", as it is just a smaller version of the Castle Boss. It acts the same, looks the same, and uses the same attack. --Yonder 17:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC) : It doesn't sound right though... the boss isn't even in the castle in the first place (nor does he live in a sub-castle, wherever that is). Moreover, not following the usual standards for naming will cause confusion to others that are accessing this site. Castle Boss is quite (in)famous and well-known, but not so for this boss, so I feel we should stick to White/Grey Boss Stickman. --bewnt 07:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC) I think "White Boss Stickman" isn't the right name either. Castle Boss is a exception in names, why not this one? It acts, looks, attacks, etc. the same as the Castle Boss, but he is only smaller. I believe Sub-Castle Boss is OK. --Yonder 17:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC) : Alright then, I sense a strong case somewhere in here. Sub-Castle Boss it is. --bewnt 23:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I think Castle Sub-Boss or Castle Miniboss flows better but Sub-Castle Bosss is fine with me-- MythosWyrm 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Are we keeping this name? The title "Sub-Castle Boss" was decided at a time in which, from what I know, there wasn't much certainty on where the game was going. The name was chosen due to the Castle Gate being a singular stage, like the Castle itself. This was all done befored the Submarine Shrine was introduced, which started the Megaboss pattern. With that being said, no other bosses aside from Megabosses have this kind of name. Every other single series stage has its boss named normally: the Lake, Oasis, ???, !!!, Frozen Lake, Mountaintop, and probably the upcoming Volcano stage. So what reason is there for this to be any different? The other reason for this is that it is similar to how the castle boss acts, but I'm not sure this is enough of a reason for it to break the naming system for this occasion. So, should we keep the name, or change it to how other non-Megaboss boss enemies are? Or should we make it so all singular stages have their name in the boss name? --Shnowshner200 (talk) 22:15, November 14, 2014 (UTC) : I agree. I've been thinking this should have been changed much earlier for all the reasons you said. White Boss Skull Stickman, anyone? Where the party's at [[User:$igma|'Σ']] 22:27, November 14, 2014 (UTC) : From the POV of maintaining system consistency, yes, but from the POV as a long time SR player, no. So... I'm not sure. Ivan247Talk Page 04:47, November 15, 2014 (UTC) :: (braces for impending vote) --Shnowshner200 (talk) 22:10, November 15, 2014 (UTC) : This can be such a pain. After all, I think the whole point of calling it the "Sub-Castle Boss" was the whole room was similar to the Castle Boss. I mean, sure, there were four enemies at the end, but except the megabosses (and the Forest 4 Boss and its minion if you want to count them), every enemy had just one attack. Since the enemy is just prepatory for the Castle Boss, why shouldn't it have its name be the same as it has been? ( Omega16)(Talk) 23:50, November 16, 2014 (UTC) :: Because it breaks the whole system. Sure, it worked fine back when the Lake wasn't even around, but we're nearing the possible end of this game, and... we're still using the name Sub-Castle Boss? I didn't even know people called it this until I took a closer look. I always referred to it as White Boss Skull Stickman. Granted, this is more of an OCD problem than anything, but I feel like we need to decide whether the name stays or not, because its basically the ugly ducking of the bunch. --Shnowshner200 (talk) 04:02, November 17, 2014 (UTC) :: Maybe one should think on it like this: Compared to what's been seen in every stage, there's only two Castle stages; Castle Gate and Castle, respectively. The rest of the stage's series, if any, have more than two, and each one had their own name as a result. From what can be said, if Pandemonium is surely the last castle, which I don't think will happen, it in itself will have a Sub-Pandemonium Boss, and this is going to come full-circle later on. :: Honestly, I think it should stay as the Sub-Castle Boss, because, again, there's only two stages, and both this boss and the Castle Boss are similar. "Breaks the whole system"? Dude, this game breaks its own rules and messes with us wiki users on a monthly basis. The hell are you talking about...? ( Omega16)(Talk) 05:51, November 17, 2014 (UTC) :: Well, if anyone cares what I think, I agree with Omega for basically all the same reasons. There really isn't anything wrong with this title, and, if anything, it's easier to understand than "White Boss Skull Stickman." I mean, how often outside of a wiki do you hear someone ask for help by calling the enemies one of these crazy names, and then hear someone know what it is without looking at the wiki!? (They'd have to memorize over a hundred(?) of these enemy names, and honestly, who does that, when with this title, it's actually obvious which enemy their talking about) Even I, a person who hardly ever plays SR, could easily figure out what this name was referring to. Why fix something that isn't broken, or even easier to understand? link=User_Talk:Starrysock|TALK 15:16, November 17, 2014 (UTC) ::That's what I'd like to know. Also, it's 281, right now, Spock. ( Omega16)(Talk) 21:22, November 17, 2014 (UTC) :: The only reason I'd prefer it the other way is because it is the only exception to an otherwise flawless naming system. It's only one stage, and the only reason it is named so is because it has a similar name to Castle and has a boss similar to the Castle boss. Otherwise, it is just a stage. Where the party's at [[User:$igma|'Σ']] 21:28, November 17, 2014 (UTC) ::: Well, remember, this wiki is about information, not just the "precious" naming system ;) ::: The way I see it, the only reason to change this name would be for this system, which again, shouldn't be priority over comprehensiveness and information in general. I'll probably be hated for this, but I actually think there should be more titles like this. The reason being, these types of titles are far easier to understand than "Chartreuse Megaboss tesseracthead Cephalopod (14 flechette)" or something ridiculous like that... Anyways, I'm not trying to change existing titles, but that's just my opinion on the matter. link=User_Talk:Starrysock|TALK 23:52, November 17, 2014 (UTC) :::: "I need help on the stage 'Castle Gate'. I can kill the regular enemies easily, but I still need help on the boss, and it would be good to get its stats as well. Let's see, the boss has a white skull head and is a stickman. So, the enemy is named the 'White Boss Skull Stickman', since it follows the naming system that EVERY enemy in the game, with the exceptions of the megabosses. Now I know exactly what to type in the search bar to go to the enemy page where the help I need is." :::: Your argument is that the ONLY reason to change the name is to make it follow the naming system. The naming system makes it easier to find the information. I, myself, have relied on the naming system COUNTLESS times for help in Stick Ranger. What would someone search if they didn't know the particular name of the boss? "Castle Gate Boss"? "Lesser Castle Boss"? "Castle Boss Child"? This is assuming they understood the relationship between the Castle Gate Boss and Castle Boss would be in the Castle Gate Boss's name. Sure, the names are long (the older conversations prove that everyone believed this), but it's very useful to have a dichotomous key in order to find this information. Where the party's at [[User:$igma|'Σ']] 02:42, November 18, 2014 (UTC) ::::: There is a lot of subjective terminology in SR. Notice that ha55ii hasn't named a single enemy, meaning that if someone was having trouble with an enemy, they won't be very likely to guess the exact terminology. Just notice how many debates there have been just on the naming of these enemies (in fact, here's one now -.-). Most of these peope needing the help have never been here and don't know about the naming system, so they're probably going to search for the location of the enemy first, and then other obvious details about the enemy, such as colour. Heck, these people could even just skim through the enemy list until finding the one they want. When I first tried SR, I searched for a few enemies. You know what I searched for? The stage. Simply because there's no name given to enemies in-game, and guessing it seems a little far-fetched when one doesn't know about the naming system, which is basically everyone outside of wiki editors and some SRCB regulars. Point being, if someone was completely unfamiliar with this wiki, they wouldn't know what to search for, so they'd search for the one peice of termanology given: the stage title. Meaning, I honestly don't think the enemy name is even that important, but of course, it has to be something. ::::: Here's another two points on your comment: ::::: The same can be said for the existing system. What would ''one search for? "Grey Oval-head Stickfigure?" Here's another thought: we've only every used one system. Who's to say that this one wouldn't be MORE useful and easier to use than this existing one? ::::: Still, there isn't really a way to judge which system is best withought holding some kind of servey on everyone who views these pages. ::::: Anyways, that rant aside, I think the only way to settle this fairly would be a vote. Otherwise we'll be on this topic forever :/ link=User_Talk:Starrysock|TALK 03:50, November 18, 2014 (UTC) :::::: They spent a lot of time trying to figure out the perfect naming system. Are you saying we should call them bosses of their stage, like "Grassland 1 Boss", "Grassland 2 Boss", etc.? You probably saw this same conversation at the beginning of the talk page. But if so, then while we're conforming to this new system, we might as well name the enemies "Grassland 2's first enemy" or "Desert 5's third enemy". My point is, anyone can see an enemy's name and see that a naming system is in place. But if they felt it was easier to search the stage name, then find the enemy, that's perfectly fine. But for convenience, I would prefer this naming system. If you scroll up, you'll see that bewnt thought the same way I did. Either way the Castle Gate boss is named, someone could search the stage first, then find the boss on its page. But if they knew the naming system, they could search that instead and get instant access to the boss's page. And I do think it's a ''little far-fetched if someone who has been to the wiki (more specifically, the Stick Ranger pages) regularly without seeing a few enemy names to understand how they are named. For their first time, sure they wouldn't know. If there wasn't a naming system in place, they surely wouldn't know the enemy's name beforehand to search. We've been using this naming system for years; to suddenly switch it to a supposed "better" system would cause a ton of confusion among people who regularly visit the wiki. This naming system should stay in place and the Castle Gate boss (in my opinion) should not be the ONLY enemy in the game that does not follow the system, even if it and the stage name resembles Castle. Where the party's at [[User:$igma|'Σ']] 19:50, November 18, 2014 (UTC) ::::::: Well, remember how I said "...I'm not trying to change existing titles..." meaning that I agree the existing system should stay, and to change it would cause a lot of confusion. That was simply my opinion on what it should have been in the first place. It wasn't an actual suggestion, just a thought I had had. Anyways, enough of this "changing the entire system." This confusion is just another reason to keep it the way it is, along with the existing reasons. I don't see a point in changing something that works, perhaps even better, just for some system that shouldn't take priority over the information itself. link=User_Talk:Starrysock|TALK 00:01, November 19, 2014 (UTC) ::::::: Wow, I didn't think this would fire up $igma to this degree. I honestly think ha55ii didn't want to name the enemies because it would take too freaking long. 281 unique enemies plus new ones each stage update sounds like a pain in the ass to think up names for them. As a result, we have this naming system, a simple set of color coding, and nominated head-species names (Big or Boss being used when needed). Then we get to the "special" ones, which are, of course, the megabosses, and this one. As much as it is, it should probably just remain the same as it has for almost 6 years, now. I'm not sure if changing the name will have a big effect, but I don't think a risk like this should be taken under any condition at all. To be truthful, look at Pandemonium coming up. SURELY, that stage is going to have a sub-stage or two, and as a result, "Sub-Pandemonium Boss", and this will come full-circle once more. Remember what I said to Shnowshner200; this game often breaks its own rules and screws with us. I mean, look at Mountaintop game-wise and Hell 5 naming-wise! ( Omega16)(Talk) 07:24, November 19, 2014 (UTC) ::::::: So, you say we should leave the name as it is? Assuming everyone agrees and this does happen, when we do finally reach this "sub-pandemonium" (stage before the final castle?), we'd pretty much have to do the same thing there. If we were to have a different name on the "sub-pandemonium boss" than this one, it would confuse a lot of people who think "Oh, sub-castle boss? It must be Sub-pandemonium boss then!" ::::::: Before that debate does happen, remember that basically everything applies to that boss that did this one, so whatever we do with this name, we basically have to do to the other one. link=User_Talk:Starrysock|TALK 15:18, November 19, 2014 (UTC) :::::::: I'm perfectly fine with "Sub-Castle Boss" IF there is a "Sub-Pandemonium Boss". But I still doubt it will happen (it's possible, though). If ha55ii once thought that Castle would be the final stage, and then came up with so much more, I don't think he would take any chances with "Pandemonium Gate". But since this looks like it would be an end to Stick Ranger, it's plausible that it would happen again, like I said. Where the party's at [[User:$igma|'Σ']] 20:52, November 19, 2014 (UTC) :::::::: Well, what did ha55ii expect making a map that large with a Castle being the final stage with that boss being Level 20? Plus, remember, the newest castle is larger than all of the other landmarks we have seen. I guarantee that there will be a sub-stage before entering Pandemonium. That, or ha55ii breaks the rules again by adding more screens before the Pandemonium Boss instead of just two screens. Either way, I'm still kinda holding on to "Sub-Castle Boss", but it will be about 3 months+ before we actually get an answer for this. :::::::: I don't think you two have also realized that every megaboss stage except the Castle has TWO entryways before it. (Submarine Shrine from Submarine 3 or 4, Pyramid from Desert 6 or 7, and the Ice Castle from Snowfield 5 or 7.) As a result, there was no way to make a sub-stage with two stages in front of it, already., allowing literally NO room for a Gate stage. If it was just one stage before the landmark, then there may have been a "Sub-Ice Castle Boss", "Sub-Pyramid Boss", and...however the hell Submarine Shrine would have been done, as it seems like a tongue-twister, there. :::::::: My point has already been stated twice, so I'm going for another note: There cannot be two Sub-Bosses before a megaboss, as it just seems off beyond accounts (Although Desert 6 and Snowfield 7 might have got parts right about it before facing their respectful landmarks.). Pandemonium seems to be a one-way street, there, but I have no guarantees. So with just one stage before the Castle, maybe "Sub-Castle Boss" had a reason for it to stay there... ( Omega16)(Talk) 21:29, November 19, 2014 (UTC) :::::::: In my opinion, I had always thought that it was "Sub-Castle Boss" simply because "Castle Gate" seems to be a part of the Castle stage. If stages like Pyramid had had a "Pyramid Gate" then we'd be in real trouble with this, and we're just lucky that never happened. Therefore, if there is a "Pandemonium Gate," I think "Sub-Pandemonium Boss" would fit well. link=User_Talk:Starrysock|TALK 00:23, November 20, 2014 (UTC) :::::::: But like I said, there are no guarantees with ha55ii controlling the updates. ( Omega16)(Talk) 03:08, November 20, 2014 (UTC) The naming system within itself is still errored to a degree even with the Sub-Castle Boss name being changed. This is one of the few reasons why I'm editing all of the SR pages as part of my SR Guide. ( Omega16)(Talk) 00:24, November 18, 2014 (UTC)